Re: RC: RE: trees

[RDCARRIE@aol.com]

In a message dated 00-08-29 00:22:33 EDT, you write:

<< Well, we've just lost a few hundred thousand  acres to preventable, or at 
 least containable,  forest fires. >>

I disagree...like I said before, even if those forests were in ideal 
condition (whatever that might be), we'd still be seeing big fires.  This 
isn't the first time that several years of weather patterns have been just 
right (or just wrong) to lead to castastrophic fires.  I do think that some, 
not all, of these fires might have been less severe had forest conditons been 
different.

<<As a "wildlife biologist involved directly 
with forest management", what's your excuse?>>

I work in Texas...sorry, can't do much personnally about the Montana, etc. 
situation!  :)

<<Saving 75 trees for the spotted 
owl took all your time?>>

Nah...I work with endangered Red-cockaded Woodpeckers...and my time is spent 
trying to CUT trees to benefit the woodpeckers...if the environmentalists 
would give us a break.  The local groups want to put a fence around the Nat. 
Forest and call it a wilderness area.

Dawn (who has now been flamed by ti...does this mean that I've "arrived"?)  
<G>